On May 27, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 27/05/11 19:43, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> On 27 May 2011, at 11:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> Why not declare a class rdf:String that is the features we want and leave rdf:PlainLiteral, with all it's datatype features that are being used, alone? (make it a subclass).
>> ...
>>> A reasonable expectation of users (whether technically right or not - people have intuitions about strings)
>>>
>>> skos:prefLabel rdfs:range<datatype>
>>>
>>> is that they can write
>>>
>>> <s> skos:prefLabel "foo"^^<datatype> .
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> You still can't say
>>
>> skos:prefLabel rdfs:range rdf:String .
>> <s> skos:prefLabel "foo"^^rdf:String .
>>
>> unless you define a lexical space, and this would take us right back to the rdf:PlainLiteral "foo@en" mess.
>
> rdf:String isn't a datatype. It's a class only.
> Only the base of the subclass hierarchies are datatypes: rdf:LangTaggedString and xsd:string
>
> But rdf:PlainLiteral is a datatype already, which I see as odd.
It *is* odd. BUt I would hope that with our final design in place, rdf:PlainLIteral would rapidly become an anachronism.
Pat
>
>> Also, I don't like having both xsd:string and rdf:String with different meaning.
>
> What name would work for you?
> My point about partial use of rdf:PlainLiteral still stands.
>>
>> Richard
>
> Andy
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes